PETITION - is personal autonomy a fundamental right?

[ksp]

Is personal autonomy a fundamental human right?

---

definition of personal autonomy:

Autonomy is independence over your thoughts or actions and the ability to make your own decisions about your life, without being influenced

- ability to make any decisions about your life
- mental capacity and competence (able to sign a legal document, and understand the implications of your consent)
- in this petition, personal autonomy only refers to the ability to think for yourself (not physical abilities)

---

examples of how personal autonomy can be applied in practice
- make choices about my life and my future: get married or not, choose my own beliefs, choose my education
- ability to define my own enjoyment and suffering, without being judged by others
- ability to define my own dignity, and compromises i am willing to make in my life
- ability to make my own decisions, even if my decisions can be interpreted as 'wrong' by others, examples:
—- able to drink alcohol - as long as i don't cause harm or injury to others (others may not approve of my choice)
—- able to gamble / play the lottery - my choice must be respected, despite what others think of me
—- not help others, because of different reasons (ex. if i lent you money and you gambled it, i won't do it again)
—- refuse medical help (my definition of what is good for me - and not your definition of what is good for me)

this implies that society recognizes the right to individual autonomy
this also implies that society will revoke all your privileges and rights, the moment you commit a crime


more info: do something

 

[Lost in a Dream]

I'm not so sure anyone actually has rights, just privileges that can be taken away in an instant if someone with a lot of power and money decides you're a threat to them, but I voted yes because it should be a right.

 

[d3c96524be95]

Before responding to the poll, I'd like to know what definition of "personal autonomy" you're thinking of. Personal autonomy for doing what? I'm not autonomous for feeding myself as I rely on the food industry to feed me. Some people who had a stroke just cannot be autonomous for everyday tasks, how would that apply to them? We are always dependent on one another to some degree, even most extreme survivalists, because we have evolved in societies.

Should society do something/do more to fade away inequalities and privileges imbalance between individuals? I think for sure. But "making personal autonomy a fundamental right" sounds like a vague statement to me. I don't understand what it would imply in practice, how and who it would help, and how it would be applied.

 

[ksp]

Before responding to the poll, I'd like to know what definition of "personal autonomy" you're thinking of. Personal autonomy for doing what? I'm not autonomous for feeding myself as I rely on the food industry to feed me. Some people who had a stroke just cannot be autonomous for everyday tasks, how would that apply to them? We are always dependent on one another to some degree, even most extreme survivalists, because we have evolved in societies.

Should society do something/do more to fade away inequalities and privileges imbalance between individuals? I think for sure. But "making personal autonomy a fundamental right" sounds like a vague statement to me. I don't understand what it would imply in practice, how and who it would help, and how it would be applied.

this is how i define personal autonomy:

- ability to make any decisions about your life
- mental capacity and competence (able to sign a legal document, and understand the implications of your consent)
- in this petition, personal autonomy only refers to the ability to think for yourself (not physical capabilities)

this implies that society recognizes the right to individual autonomy
this also implies that society will revoke all your privileges and rights, the moment you commit a crime


Autonomy is independence over your thoughts or actions and the ability to make your own decisions about your life, without being influenced



ps. @d3c96524be95 - i also updated the original post (thanks for clarification)

 

[ksp]

changed the voting from public to anonymous, and added more details about individual autonomy.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Hmm, it's actually a difficult one to be honest. As an idea- YES- we should have the right to make choices about our lives. We SHOULD question when our autonomies are being restricted- who has the authority to tell me what to do? HOW much should my behaviour and ideas be restricted? What are their motives?

Still- like it or not- we were born into a society filled with billions of other people and animals. If you want FULL autonomy- that surely involves lawlessness. Surely SOME laws will need to be enforced still- everyone has the right to: not be stolen from, not be raped, not be murdered. Even in the smaller details we struggle- when does freedom of speech overlap into being abusive and inciteful?

You'd also like to HOPE that in a civilized society- we don't allow people to starve to death or die of untreated illnesses- no matter their situation. Prevention and aid costs money- state money. State money comes through taxes and charity. Do you like paying taxes? Given the choice- do you think everyone would pay tax?

Surely manners make the world slightly more bearable to live in- try and help people who are less able. These are imposed on us though- we are taught to be polite for instance- I'm not so sure it comes naturally.

Taking your example of alcohol consumption- Individual A decides to spend ALL their wages on alcohol. They can no longer pay the rent and they lose their job. SHOULD individual B be FORCED to support them? Individual B is a stranger- not a member of their family... We don't CHOSE to pay tax but surely- it's pretty important that we do- otherwise- some members of our community will likely fall by the wayside and be forced to turn to crime to survive.

It ISN'T by any means a perfect system but living as part of a whole- as we do- SOME autonomy kind of needs to be restricted. We're probably VERY selfish beings deep down- how would society mesh at all if some of those impluses weren't restrained?

That's autonomy as a whole though- as it relates to living and the choices we make. When it comes to dying- other things come in to play. Forcing everyone to live against their will for religious grounds doesn't seem fair because not everyone IS religious.

I suspect there are lots of economic reasons at play- as to why governments don't want their citizens offing themselves en masse- that's maybe more difficult to pinpoint and prove though.

I suppose on an individual level- I suspect families are devastated by suicides. THEY might not be able to come to terms with this notion that the person was using their right to autonomy. THEY would likely rather believe that the person was ill and not in a fit state of mind to make that decision (which was pehaps wrong in their eyes.)

Any idea of autonomy does usually come down to this for me: Yes- we SHOULD have the right to chose when to end our own lives. BUT there likely do need to be checks in place to ascertain that the person IS in a rational state of mind.

For the organisations who end up carrying assisted suicides out- I imagine they will also want safe guards. They don't want to be sued! What do you think would constitute a good defence in this case:

An 18 year old with no prior health issues fufills a competency test over a period of say 6 months with the admin team at the facility and receives assisted suicide unbeknownst to their family... Their family tries to sue. Would it be enough that the teenager had filled in a few forms to show they were in sound state of mind? I kind of think a lot would be questioned.

WHO can ascertain whether you are mentally competant? I imagine a doctor or therapist of some sort. I don't know- I just CAN'T see assisted suicide ever being separated entirely from healthcare and/or maybe legal professions.

I guess what I'm trying to say is- the right to die via assisted suicide is likely more complicated than just one person's wish to die. I expect companies that carry out this will want a whole load of backup material to ensure that they aren't later accused of manslaughter/wrongful death. This I imagine will constitute support from the person's healthcare professionals and family. It's whether THEY will support the person in their wishes that I suspect will determine the outcome. So- basically- I'm just not all that hopeful that an individual BY THEMSELVES will ever be allowed to make that decision.

 

[ksp]

Hmm, it's actually a difficult one to be honest.

as always, you make very good points :) (a lot of them:)

but we need to reduce the context - society has a lot of shortcomings that will need to work out, but i'll try to address your points in terms of self-determination

If you want FULL autonomy- that surely involves lawlessness. Surely SOME laws will need to be enforced

we need to accept the most basic laws of acceptance:
- i am not allowed to steal -> accepted by society (accepted by everyone)
- i am not allowed to kill someone -> direct violation of someone else's autonomy (everyone has the right to live)
- i am not allowed to impose my will on someone else (kidnap or imprison someone)
- i am not allowed to rape, beat, mutilate, torture, or induce suffering on someone else
all these laws are referring to my limits regarding other people
there are also current laws that shouldn't be accepted by society
- dictatorship - no freedom for any citizens, that are not in power
- war - i believe 0% of russian soldiers are actively trying to kill any ukrainians - putin and his circle
- religion - percentage of society that disregards autonomy based on irrational beliefs
— not directly creating laws, but influencing older politicians (the ones creating laws)
(imagine how it was like asking for autonomy with 99% religious society - blasphemy)

there are still a lot of shortcomings to overcome, but progress is made every year

You'd also like to HOPE that in a civilized society- we don't allow people to starve to death or die of untreated illnesses- no matter their situation

society needs to come to terms with limits:
- poverty will never be eliminated - inherent selfishness by nature
- people will always die, by various diseases, including terminal illnesses - natural limitations
but people will not accept these limitations because of the species survival instinct (not just individual SI)
species SI is just as strong as individual SI
- most people ignore death, they don't like to be reminded of it, and is - in fact - active mass-denial (builtin by nature)
- we effectively live under the impression that death doesn't exist for us, or at least not now (i was like this)
- unless we are confronted by it, and now we are too old - so it's too late

so society needs to move from species survival instinct, to rationality: we will always have limits, so we need to accept them as much as we can, cope with them, and cut our losses:
- terminally ill and old age - why impose irrational suffering on them, instead of providing dignity? (lost cause)
- voluntary euthanasia: i VOLUNTARILY want the end my life (regardless of my reasons) (lost cause)

now let's focus on saving lives - people that want to live:
- can you contribute to society?
- or are you draining resources?
in order to live, you need to support yourself: can you support yourself, including paying taxes?
- no, because i'm lazy -> should i (society) support your laziness? - you need to earn your right to exist!
- no, because of my intellectual limitations -> we'll provide you with labor work (willingness)
- no, because of my physical limitations -> we'll provide you with intellectual work (willingness)
— if you are still not capable to support yourself, society should not support you either (cold, but result is inescapable)
— unless you come up with a meaningful contribution to society, we have no choice

SOME autonomy kind of needs to be restricted

there shouldn't be any restrictions in autonomy

autonomy doesn't imply freedom, recklessness, or anarchy - it implies responsibility of my decisions
- if i decide to do something with myself, i'm responsible for the end-result (accepting success, as well as failure)
- if i decide that i don't want to be part society - don't restrict me freedom, and respect my decision
— ex. i consider my life to be a lifetime of imprisonment: i feel i was forced to exist, and i don't want to exist

When it comes to dying- other things come in to play. Forcing everyone to live against their will for religious grounds doesn't seem fair because not everyone IS religious.

this is what this petition is about (reduced context): freedom of choice about end of life
- personal autonomy, that includes not only my right to live, but also my right to die (or self-determination)

society will become much more reasonable:
- logical thinking, scientific proof - rationality, vs.
- irrational thinking based on fear and indoctrination -> do as we say, or else…

I suspect families are devastated by suicides. THEY might not be able to come to terms with this notion that the person was using their right to autonomy. THEY would likely rather believe that the person was ill and not in a fit state of mind to make that decision (which was pehaps wrong in their eyes.)

if society guarantees my existence to the age of 18 (through my parents), it means that after 18, i am responsible for my own life, it also implies that i earned my autonomy

if i'm 18 and over, i don't live my life for my family (parents) - they did their duty, and now i have to do mine

after 18, my decision cannot be overwritten by my family - period
if i commit a crime, my family will not go to jail - i will (i will pay for my mistakes, not my family)
if my mental capacity and competence are recognized, i am responsible for my life and my death
(to me, the only mental incompetence that will revoke my autonomy is alzheimer's disease, or similar where i will not be able to sign my name and when i won't be able to understand the implications of my decisions)

there likely do need to be checks in place to ascertain that the person IS in a rational state of mind.

WHO can ascertain whether you are mentally competant?

the only checks that need to exist, are related to my rationality and mental competence - mental state of mind:
performed daily in trials: am i able to commit a crime - yes or no?
if i am mentally competent enough to commit a crime, but if i don't commit crimes, then i am able to end my own life (i deserve my autonomy and the right to self determination)

the right to die via assisted suicide is likely more complicated than just one person's wish to die

society makes it more complicated than it needs to be: we already have the tools to determine mental capacity and competence, but we are extremely reluctant because there is a lot of responsibility involved; the species survival instinct dictates that we need to be extremely careful. but society will eventually recognize that every individual has the responsibility of his/her life, through personal autonomy: 99.999% of people are extremely intelligent and can decide for themselves; the don't need a 'big brother' to watch over them

providing nembutal in pharmacies will not be as catastrophic as society thinks; it will only open the door to personal freedom, and critical thinking - deep self-analysis and introspection. when people will not be forced to live their lives, they will bring much more to the table - they will contribute to society because they want to, not because they are forced to !

 

[Forever Sleep]

as always, you make very good points :) (a lot of them:)

but we need to reduce the context - society has a lot of shortcomings that will need to work out, but i'll try to address your points in terms of self-determination


we need to accept the most basic laws of acceptance:
- i am not allowed to steal -> accepted by society (accepted by everyone)
- i am not allowed to kill someone -> direct violation of someone else's autonomy (everyone has the right to live)
- i am not allowed to impose my will on someone else (kidnap or imprison someone)
- i am not allowed to rape, beat, mutilate, torture, or induce suffering on someone else
all these laws are referring to my limits regarding other people
there are also current laws that shouldn't be accepted by society
- dictatorship - no freedom for any citizens, that are not in power
- war - i believe 0% of russian soldiers are actively trying to kill any ukrainians - putin and his circle
- religion - percentage of society that disregards autonomy based on irrational beliefs
— not directly creating laws, but influencing older politicians (the ones creating laws)
(imagine how it was like asking for autonomy with 99% religious society - blasphemy)

there are still a lot of shortcomings to overcome, but progress is made every year


society needs to come to terms with limits:
- poverty will never be eliminated - inherent selfishness by nature
- people will always die, by various diseases, including terminal illnesses - natural limitations
but people will not accept these limitations because of the species survival instinct (not just individual SI)
species SI is just as strong as individual SI
- most people ignore death, they don't like to be reminded of it, and is - in fact - active mass-denial (builtin by nature)
- we effectively live under the impression that death doesn't exist for us, or at least not now (i was like this)
- unless we are confronted by it, and now we are too old - so it's too late

so society needs to move from species survival instinct, to rationality: we will always have limits, so we need to accept them as much as we can, cope with them, and cut our losses:
- terminally ill and old age - why impose irrational suffering on them, instead of providing dignity? (lost cause)
- voluntary euthanasia: i VOLUNTARILY want the end my life (regardless of my reasons) (lost cause)

now let's focus on saving lives - people that want to live:
- can you contribute to society?
- or are you draining resources?
in order to live, you need to support yourself: can you support yourself, including paying taxes?
- no, because i'm lazy -> should i (society) support your laziness? - you need to earn your right to exist!
- no, because of my intellectual limitations -> we'll provide you with labor work (willingness)
- no, because of my physical limitations -> we'll provide you with intellectual work (willingness)
-- if you are still not capable to support yourself, society should not support you either (cold, but result is inescapable)


there shouldn't be any restrictions in autonomy

autonomy doesn't imply freedom, recklessness, or anarchy - it implies responsibility of my decisions
- if i decide to do something with myself, i'm responsible for the end-result (accepting success, as well as failure)
- if i decide that i don't want to be part society - don't restrict me freedom, and respect my decision
— ex. i consider my life to be a lifetime of imprisonment: i feel i was forced to be exist, and i don't want to exist


this is what this petition is about (reduced context): freedom of choice about end of life
- personal autonomy, that includes not only my right to live, but also my right to die (or self-determination)

society will become much more reasonable:
- logical thinking, scientific proof - rationality, vs.
- irrational thinking based on fear and indoctrination -> do as we say, or else…


if society guarantees my existence to the age of 18 (through my parents), it means that after 18, i am responsible for my own life, it also implies that i earned my autonomy

if i'm 18 and over, i don't live my life for my family (parents) - they did their duty, and now i have to do mine

after 18, my decision cannot be overwritten by my family - period
if i commit a crime, my family will not go to jail - i will (i will pay for my mistakes, not my family)
if my mental capacity and competence are recognized, i am responsible for my life and my death
(to me, the only mental incompetence that will revoke my autonomy is alzheimer's disease, or similar where i will not be able to sign my name and when i won't be able to understand the implications of my decisions)



the only checks that need to exist, are related to my rationality and mental competence - mental state of mind:
performed daily in trials: am i able to commit a crime - yes or no?
if i am mentally competent enough to commit a crime, but if i don't commit crimes, then i am able to end my own life (i deserve my autonomy and the right to self determination)


society makes it more complicated than it needs to be: we already have the tools to determine mental capacity and competence, but we are extremely reluctant because there is a lot of responsibility involved; the species survival instinct dictates that we need to be extremely careful. but society will eventually recognize that every individual has the responsibility of his/her life, through personal autonomy: 99.999% of people are extremely intelligent and can decide for themselves; the don't need a 'big brother' to watch over them

providing nembutal in pharmacies will not be as catastrophic as society thinks; it will only open the door to personal freedom, and critical thinking - deep self-analysis and introspection. when people will not be forced to live their lives, they will bring much more to the table - they will contribute to society because they want to, not because they are forced to !

You know- that really does sound amazing- to have nembutal in pharmacies. That would make it so much less scary.

I guess the ideal will be that maybe one thing will follow another. Perhaps if assisted suicide becomes more widely available and more widely accepted- the subject may become less stigmatized. I think it would help families to know more about how their relations were REALLY feeling. Ironically- people would actually be suffering alone less I would think- which may actually help them to keep going. I was actually surprised by a poll I did recently here- just how many people hadn't told anyone about their ideation. That's a massive burden to be carrying alone.

Ironically- I think it may actually end up at least prolonging- if not saving lives if the whole subject was opened up- not simply- NO- WE MUSN'T TALK ABOUT THIS- DON'T EVEN THINK IT! (It's too late by that point- the person already IS thinking about it!)

 

[ksp]

Perhaps if assisted suicide becomes more widely available and more widely accepted- the subject may become less stigmatized. I think it would help families to know more about how their relations were REALLY feeling

exactly!

ironically, i do believe that a peaceful death will lift a huge burden and anxiety from people
- allowing families to come to terms with the decision, say goodbye, and provide very important closures
- eliminate all traumas, and any unintended casualties / collateral damages
- eliminate taboo suicidal ideation, and encourage dealing with important existential issues, without detrimental platitudes
- suicidal people will not even be obsessed with suicide anymore, and probably become constructive contributors to society
- and ultimately, like you said: become less stigmatized overall - death is a fact of life

I was actually surprised by a poll I did recently here- just how many people hadn't told anyone about their ideation. That's a massive burden to be carrying alone.

in light of recent events i became much more aware of this enormous burden: feedback from @RainAndSadness, from another personal autonomy poll.

---

if I'm trapped in "me" then what does that have to do with any other human?

thank you !! that's exactly the point i was trying to make in another thread: what-is-it-like-to-be-you
(my qualia is one of the most important argument that supports autonomy)

 

[pthnrdnojvsc]

thank you !! that's exactly the point i was trying to make in another thread: what-is-it-like-to-be-you
(my qualia is one of the most important argument that supports autonomy)

Yeah only "my" consciousness developed in this particular animal brain and body. If I get a terrible pain in an internal organ no other creature will feel it or care. So If I kill this animal body I'm trapped in "me" then what does that have to do with any other human / primate? One less monkey "me" in the world out of 8 billion.

What Actually Is Consciousness, and How Did It Evolve?

Theories of consciousness must be firmly rooted in evolutionary biology (Part 1)

www.psychologytoday.com

 

[ksp]

What Actually Is Consciousness, and How Did It Evolve?

Theories of consciousness must be firmly rooted in evolutionary biology (Part 1)

www.psychologytoday.com

@pthnrdnojvsc - thanks: excellent article!
always interested in scientific explanations from neurology and clinical psychiatry fields

 

[Source Energy]

it most definitely is

Exactly: we should stay because we want to, not because we have to! Who made them our jailers? What are we punished for, to be imprisoned in a world we suffer?

As a side note, this is why I refuse to marry and have kids ( beside antinatalist and misanthropic views ) : I cannot fathom having someone tied up to me with a few children and joined assets. How do I really know if he wants out, but stays because he has to? Same with life...the door should be always unlocked.

And you know what? If N would be found in pharmacies, a lot of us would give life another chance. Like, you can just get it in a month or in a year, it isn't going anywhere, you have that peace of mind, while you are trying everything possible. And if it came to that, hey, it is your life.

 

[ksp]

Who made them our jailers?

this is what we should be aiming for: true autonomy for younger generations (and us)
and not only for this community, but the entire society!

'jailers' (i like your term - we are effectively being held in a prison:)
- old leaders influenced by religion, and indoctrinated by rigid mentality
- authoritarian politicians - only in power because normal people don't shut them down (yet)
- religious leaders - because our parents gave them power that they don't deserve
leaders enforce their views down to the lower levels: judges, doctors, police, media directors, etc, - in a cascading effect

but time will force old leaders out of power (and they'll probably be asking for nembutal)
the danger is in their lasting legacy: will young minds be influenced by rigid beliefs, or logic?
(i know young minds will be much more open-minded eventually, but how many generations will we need to wait for this - this is why we need autonomy NOW !)

As a side note, this is why I refuse to marry and have kids ( beside antinatalist and misanthropic views ) : I cannot fathom having someone tied up to me with a few children and joined assets. How do I really know if he wants out, but stays because he has to? Same with life...the door should be always unlocked.

autonomy will affect all aspects of human behaviors, including marriage, having children, education, abortions, etc
autonomy is key to a superior society

If N would be found in pharmacies, a lot of us would give life another chance

a forum like this will not be needed by a healthy society, where death is acknowledged
(i think this is what @FuneralCry frequently alludes to)

and yes, most of us wouldn't be suicidal, but productive members of a solid society

 

[Dayrain]

It is. De jure. De facto it's not.

 

[ksp]

i agree - it should be respected

 

[Temporal_Anchorite]

Of course you do. Your fundamental right of self-ownership is inalienable and incontestable. If you have no right to personal autonomy, then you have nothing.

 

[Hopeliss]

you're the only one who controls your body so you should have the final say on your body

 

[ksp]

Of course you do. Your fundamental right of self-ownership is inalienable and incontestable. If you have no right to personal autonomy, then you have nothing.

thank you ! i like the way you phrased it: self-ownership :)

---

you're the only one who controls your body so you should have the final say on your body

obviously - thank you !!

 

[leeloosnow]

well, according to TST seven tenets yes bodily autonomy is a fundamental right. this is obviously an unpopular humanistic viewpoint considering the ongoing undermining of individual 'rights' such as voting or reproductive healthcare in the US. i kinda like how George Carlin explains it.

 

[ksp]

bodily autonomy is a fundamental right. this is obviously an unpopular humanistic viewpoint considering the ongoing undermining of individual 'rights' such as voting or reproductive healthcare in the US

yes - apparently fundamental rights are fleeting, so we must fight to make them relevant - continuously
thanks for the links: thumbs-up for the first one, and for the second: